Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed.

Boo-Yah seems to have a schizophrenic attitude to foreign policy though. On the one hand, he seems to advocate that the US leaves other countries to fight their own battles and not rely on the US for support, but on the other he thinks that the US shouldn't allow itself to be bullied and should take the fight to 'them'. I am therefore a little confused as to what he's actually advocating in terms of policy, apart from West is best.

Hence "Wild Tangent" (i.e. - all over the place).

[Peikko 1,575]

What bubble would that be?

Sorry, your argument is so eratic I can't really make any sense of it.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Agreed was @ Number 6, should there be any confusion, re skeptism over the whole WMD scenario, and how many people in the UK at least, bought into that little cherade.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Heracles 417]

What bubble would that be?

Sorry, your argument is so eratic I can't really make any sense of it.

I understand it takes some a while to keep up. Maybe I should start writing and explaining things on a fifth grade level for some of you to understand.. Was there not an article in another thread out about the liberal mindset. Where you guys need everything in a simple step 1 followed by a step 2 style process otherwise the brain experiences ram count.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

Ok since you seem very illetirate about simple facts and have the audacity to claim them as false (pure ignorance at its best), I will enlighten you. Hope this helps.

now that's funny

first:

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

In this video you can see COLIN POWELL admitting in feb 2001 IRAQ HAD NO WMD's

Second:

the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/133581_du04.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/anderkel.html

these are just a few from DOZENS of others

Third:

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece

As you can see this is from the INDEPENDANT. Theres also a video of US SOLDIERS THEMSELVES ADMITTING IT ON TAPE!!

Fourth:

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/152

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1458969.htm

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles...es+And+No+Water

Fifth:

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/...in2177031.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1031-05.htm

again dozens more

Sixth:

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/20/rad...sses/index.html

if you dont want to read the whole thing, heres a statement from within:

Bush, he said, sloughed off the advice the "top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The president committed only one-fifth of that force to the war."

This was also admitted by a british general in the Telegraph.

seventh:

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

Im talking about recent warfare not a defeated regime in WW2. Look at vietnam, on a microcosmic scale somalia and now as in Iraq... sorry but the US has lost already the goal of quashing Al queda has only concluded with the opposite effect.

Thanks.

first point - chemical weapons are, imo, weapons of mass destruction. he had the capability to make them. that is not something one forgets. the arguement you're making is just because it's not been found does not mean it does not exist - i'll have to remember that when i can't find my car keys. as for what colin said, intelligence is conflicting and contradictory. and as i've said, quite a few other intel services believed he had wmd's too.

second point - depleted uranium is used for armor penetration. nothing beats it. still an acceptable munition and un resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on. given that most of the fighting is urban with very little need for the listed weapons platforms in the links you cited, it's still as nebulous as global warming. also within one of your links it listed burned out vehicles. it was common knowledge back in 91 not to be near one due to the chemicals and short term radiation in the area. also of note is while it's easy to blame an increase in cancer on the du, you should remember that the sky was black at noon due to the burning oilfields and we were frequently covered in soot. i'd place more emphasis on that being the cause for the rise in cancer.

third point - white phosphorous is not considered to be a chemical weapon. a chemical weapon is something along the lines of nerve agent, blister agent, and so on.

fourth point - from your own links: The Baghdad Municipality blames insurgent attacks and crumbling infrastructure, but those without water say the problem lies with corrupt officials. also - water is often contaminated, owing to the poor repair of sewage and water-supply networks and the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, which are the main source of drinking water.” how is this the fault of the us again?

also from your links: Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

While many Baghdadis acknowledge that the insurgent attacks have curtailed their water supply, they also blame officials for the crisis.

"There is corruption inside the ministry," says Fadhil Hassan. "They are stealing the reconstruction money which should be spent on water projects," he says.

regarding electricty - how many homes over there have electricty? not many that i saw. again, from your own links:

Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

in conclusion on that point, it's no wonder child mortality rates are up - but is it really the fault of the usa or the insurgents?

fifth point - from the link dated October 31, 2005: “Nearly two years ago, the US developed a reconstruction plan that specified a target number of projects that would be executed using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines” in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.

Mr Bowen found that “systematic planning” for the post-hostilities period in Iraq was “insufficient in both scope and implementation”.

you say no plan, well it seems there was one, just not as in depth as it should be. that last sentence by mr bowen ruins your statement about no plan........if you'd said insufficient, lacking, something similar to i'd probably have agreed.

sixth point - a report by cnn with that number cited as the number wanted by military brass does not count as "...standard militry doctrine..."

you've failed miserably on that rebuttal.

seventh point - no link provided. you stated "You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet"

i said "i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false."

do you really consider "A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point." to be sufficient to prove that when your own words double or triple the number of your original statement plus no reference to the altitude the bombs were dropped at?

eighth point - then perhaps you should have been more clear in your original writing eh?

[Dan J 277]

What bubble would that be?

Sorry, your argument is so eratic I can't really make any sense of it.

I understand it takes some a while to keep up. Maybe I should start writing and explaining things on a fifth grade level for some of you to understand.. Was there not an article in another thread out about the liberal mindset. Where you guys need everything in a simple step 1 followed by a step 2 style process otherwise the brain experiences ram count.

Its a little hard to keep up with someone who has ADD when it comes to politics.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Im talking about recent warfare not a defeated regime in WW2. Look at vietnam, on a microcosmic scale somalia and now as in Iraq... sorry but the US has lost already the goal of quashing Al queda has only concluded with the opposite effect.

Thanks.

Since you know how to count and use google, bravo, I have a question for you..

What should the US have done after 9/11??

What should they have done when presented with evidence, at the time, that Saddam was acquiring WMD and refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors??

US should have gone after the guy who comitted 9/11 Osama bin laden!, apperantly he's still happily making videos for us.

EVIDENCE????... I just pasted a video showing COLIN POWEL admitting in 2001 that iraq had no WMD's. Not evidence more like a lie.

All im saying is Iraq didnt deserve to get attacked. Simple!

How should the capture osama when apparently once they enter another nation they are branded imperialist oil hungry pigs???

If you said Iraq was a mistake. I would agree with that. Not because it is taking so long but because it is a huge waste of time.

The evidence on WMD was released in 2002. So naturally any opinion prior to that was based on the evidence available back then. Yes we now know that the new evidence was wrong. Therefore, in hindsight, we should not have gone to war

Well you entered Iraq any way... but by all means do the job in afghanistan where he was given a safe haven. NOT IRAQ

Sorry but it was 12 months before that they knew because it wasnt just Colin it was condaleezza also admitting it. They lied for their agenda what ever that may be cooperate business, oil, Israel etc maybe all of them things. But admitting no WMD 12 months prior and linking Iraq to 9/11 which was a blaintant lie... your fooling yourself if you believe it was just a mistake!

Im not saying Iraq was a mistake, it was planned there are minute recordings of Tony Blairs converstation 3 months before 9/11 proving it!... im not calling it a mistake as you would like to sprinkle some decoration on it... it was PLANNED!.. that alone should give you doubts about your government. It does me... according to the lancet report over a million Iraqi deaths have accurred because of this. I have a conscience and it doesnt sit well with me when my government is beating the drums of war in my name and as a human being I have the duty to speak out against liars. My belief is war should only be for defence on the last resort. Anyway im done on this topic. Cheers.

[Heracles 417]

Agreed.

Boo-Yah seems to have a schizophrenic attitude to foreign policy though. On the one hand, he seems to advocate that the US leaves other countries to fight their own battles and not rely on the US for support, but on the other he thinks that the US shouldn't allow itself to be bullied and should take the fight to 'them'. I am therefore a little confused as to what he's actually advocating in terms of policy, apart from West is best.

You actually got it right. I am advocating that the US keep to itself yet give a stern warming to anyone that they will not tolerate being bullied or intimidated by other nations..

PS I love how you enjoy the perks of the west yet love to bag its strategies and policies. Polices that helped form it in the first place.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

It was known before the war that Saddam was a paper tiger. But why let petty facts ruin the nationalism?

tell that to kuwait

[mawilson 2,133]

In an economic sense yes, but you could also make a case for the extermination of poor people. But ethically, you would run into trouble.

I thought the "war on poverty" was supposed to do exactly that

[Peikko 1,575]

Again, because I enjoy my democratic freedom to debate various policies and ideologies, I am somehow offending your sensibilities? Tant Pis!

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

In an economic sense yes, but you could also make a case for the extermination of poor people. But ethically, you would run into trouble.

I thought the "war on poverty" was supposed to do exactly that

so that's why we're not winning!

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Ok since you seem very illetirate about simple facts and have the audacity to claim them as false (pure ignorance at its best), I will enlighten you. Hope this helps.

now that's funny

first:

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

In this video you can see COLIN POWELL admitting in feb 2001 IRAQ HAD NO WMD's

Second:

the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/133581_du04.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/anderkel.html

these are just a few from DOZENS of others

Third:

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece

As you can see this is from the INDEPENDANT. Theres also a video of US SOLDIERS THEMSELVES ADMITTING IT ON TAPE!!

Fourth:

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/152

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1458969.htm

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles...es+And+No+Water

Fifth:

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/...in2177031.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1031-05.htm

again dozens more

Sixth:

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/20/rad...sses/index.html

if you dont want to read the whole thing, heres a statement from within:

Bush, he said, sloughed off the advice the "top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The president committed only one-fifth of that force to the war."

This was also admitted by a british general in the Telegraph.

seventh:

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

Im talking about recent warfare not a defeated regime in WW2. Look at vietnam, on a microcosmic scale somalia and now as in Iraq... sorry but the US has lost already the goal of quashing Al queda has only concluded with the opposite effect.

Thanks.

first point - chemical weapons are, imo, weapons of mass destruction. he had the capability to make them. that is not something one forgets. the arguement you're making is just because it's not been found does not mean it does not exist - i'll have to remember that when i can't find my car keys. as for what colin said, intelligence is conflicting and contradictory. and as i've said, quite a few other intel services believed he had wmd's too.

second point - depleted uranium is used for armor penetration. nothing beats it. still an acceptable munition and un resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on. given that most of the fighting is urban with very little need for the listed weapons platforms in the links you cited, it's still as nebulous as global warming. also within one of your links it listed burned out vehicles. it was common knowledge back in 91 not to be near one due to the chemicals and short term radiation in the area. also of note is while it's easy to blame an increase in cancer on the du, you should remember that the sky was black at noon due to the burning oilfields and we were frequently covered in soot. i'd place more emphasis on that being the cause for the rise in cancer.

third point - white phosphorous is not considered to be a chemical weapon. a chemical weapon is something along the lines of nerve agent, blister agent, and so on.

fourth point - from your own links: The Baghdad Municipality blames insurgent attacks and crumbling infrastructure, but those without water say the problem lies with corrupt officials. also - water is often contaminated, owing to the poor repair of sewage and water-supply networks and the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, which are the main source of drinking water.” how is this the fault of the us again?

also from your links: Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

While many Baghdadis acknowledge that the insurgent attacks have curtailed their water supply, they also blame officials for the crisis.

"There is corruption inside the ministry," says Fadhil Hassan. "They are stealing the reconstruction money which should be spent on water projects," he says.

regarding electricty - how many homes over there have electricty? not many that i saw. again, from your own links:

Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

in conclusion on that point, it's no wonder child mortality rates are up - but is it really the fault of the usa or the insurgents?

fifth point - from the link dated October 31, 2005: “Nearly two years ago, the US developed a reconstruction plan that specified a target number of projects that would be executed using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines” in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.

Mr Bowen found that “systematic planning” for the post-hostilities period in Iraq was “insufficient in both scope and implementation”.

you say no plan, well it seems there was one, just not as in depth as it should be. that last sentence by mr bowen ruins your statement about no plan........if you'd said insufficient, lacking, something similar to i'd probably have agreed.

sixth point - a report by cnn with that number cited as the number wanted by military brass does not count as "...standard militry doctrine..."

you've failed miserably on that rebuttal.

seventh point - no link provided. you stated "You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet"

i said "i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false."

do you really consider "A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point." to be sufficient to prove that when your own words double or triple the number of your original statement plus no reference to the altitude the bombs were dropped at?

eighth point - then perhaps you should have been more clear in your original writing eh?

First you say they havent found them yet...please im not even gonna comment.

second so what???... the point im making is its effecting the population as i made in the original statement. I dont care what weapon it comes from that wasnt my point.

third white phosphurus IS CONSIDERED a chemical weapon as it kills in masses, please just watch the video as ive seen the scenes than comment. And it was considered chemical by many people if it wasnt why the hell would the US try and deny it.. you have no argument on this im sorry./

fourth electricity water...its been 4 years the point is it still isnt stable i dont care whos doing it, you guys started the war and also you mishandled billions of dollars of iraqi money (search yourself if you need to see a link on that one)

fifth. Im sorry mate but ive seen high ranking officers in the british army say that there was no real plan even uptil recently, maybe i provided you with an old link but you put me on the spot and I searched fast.

sixth fine admitted not militiry doctrine as such but come on its worth its weight in gold when you are being told that by your own commanders.

seventh Ive already told you it was on the BBC on TV cant exactly push that through the net sorry and yes there are videos that prove his point. Not interested in finding them for you, but not a problem.

eighth my writing was not to start lumping links on it was just a point I was making that Iraq should not have been attacked.

Any way respected you know your stuff too. Im done with this topic. It was interesting. Peace.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Holy #######!!

This thread really took off, didn't it? Wow...

Just because the other side isn't part of it, doesn't release us from our responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

But because we are a state, and part of international law, our actions within those laws can affect our relationships with other countries. We take out the nukes? there will be hell to pay. Not only that, you will basically destroy relationships with any Arab country, which will cut us off for significant supplies of oil. An action that would have costs beyond the battlefield.

Any significant action in violation of international law on our part will have repercussions all across the middle east, and likely the world.

This is why I feel that the United States -- and Western Society in general -- will lose the battle against Islamic terrorism. As despicable as it sounds, and as much as I dislike saying it, if we're not ready and willing to "go all the way" in this war, then we have no business waging it in the first place. We were prepared to do this in previous wars, so why not now? What happened? What's changed? Where has America gone wrong?

When fighting an enemy that is not a recognized nation with a standing army (with no uniforms and purposefully blends into the civilian populace), and therefore not part of the "international community" (answering to no one in it), and has never even come close to signing a document like the Geneva Convention, a country that fits all of the above cannot realistically expect to fight this enemy on a level playing ground. Not if they want to win.

This is the dilemma the United States faces today. As one of the most recognizable (if not the most recognizable) country on the planet and as the world's only surviving "superpower" from the Cold War era, it's expected to behave in a certain manner during war. This includes fighting terrorists who break every rule in the book. The problem with that idea is that the terrorist factions know this, and because they know this, they use it to their advantage and attempt to kill off (or otherwise severely injure) American soldiers anyway they can, knowing that there's only so much the soldiers can do since they're restricted by a code only they have to adhere to while in battle.

A similar scenario developed way back in the late 18th century. Thirteen rebellious colonies decided (for various reasons, such as the "tea tax" and "stamp tax" or the outright refusal for fair representation in Parliament) they wanted to teach the British Empire a lesson, with some even calling for a complete split from the mother country. Obviously, Great Britain didn't find this too amusing (especially when the colonists began using force), so the British Army and Navy were called in to derail the rebellion before it went too far.

At this time in history, the British had the world's most powerful and most efficient military; Britain's army and navy was truly the "best of the best." So why did it fail? Well, partially because the British didn't take the colonists seriously ("They're only farmers and merchants, for God's sake, man! What can they do against professional soldiers?") until it was too late to recoup their loses, but mostly it was because the British military had a strict by-the-book doctrine for warfare which they were trained for and were going to use, because "that's how proper a military fought."

Of course, the British military was far better trained than the colonial militias and so it would've been suicide for the colonists to meet the British out on the field, face-to-face, marching towards each other with rifles leveled and firing in turns. The American Revolution would've been over pretty damn quickly if that had happened. So what the colonists did was take a different tactic -- guerrilla warfare. Many of the colonists in the militias had fought for the British during the French and Indian War and had experience dealing with Native Americans on their own as well, so they knew something of this run-and-gun form of fighting, which was great to use on an enemy when you're outnumbered and your technology doesn't compare.

In the end, the colonists won and eventually set up the nation of the United States of America. We all know this. But I feel the primary reason the British military lost to the colonial militias was because they refused to toss the rulebook away and fight the enemy on their own terms. The British couldn't (or wouldn't) understand that their enemy was simply not going to fight them according to "the way wars were supposed to be fought" at the time, and therefore, the British needed to adapt in order to emerge victorious. Instead, they relied on their smug feelings of superiority, their higher level of training, and overall greater technology.

They still lost.

Does any of that sound the least bit familiar to anyone here? At all? If not, think for a little bit. It might come to you.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

Ok since you seem very illetirate about simple facts and have the audacity to claim them as false (pure ignorance at its best), I will enlighten you. Hope this helps.

now that's funny

first:

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

In this video you can see COLIN POWELL admitting in feb 2001 IRAQ HAD NO WMD's

Second:

the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/133581_du04.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/anderkel.html

these are just a few from DOZENS of others

Third:

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece

As you can see this is from the INDEPENDANT. Theres also a video of US SOLDIERS THEMSELVES ADMITTING IT ON TAPE!!

Fourth:

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/152

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1458969.htm

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles...es+And+No+Water

Fifth:

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/...in2177031.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1031-05.htm

again dozens more

Sixth:

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/20/rad...sses/index.html

if you dont want to read the whole thing, heres a statement from within:

Bush, he said, sloughed off the advice the "top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The president committed only one-fifth of that force to the war."

This was also admitted by a british general in the Telegraph.

seventh:

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

Im talking about recent warfare not a defeated regime in WW2. Look at vietnam, on a microcosmic scale somalia and now as in Iraq... sorry but the US has lost already the goal of quashing Al queda has only concluded with the opposite effect.

Thanks.

first point - chemical weapons are, imo, weapons of mass destruction. he had the capability to make them. that is not something one forgets. the arguement you're making is just because it's not been found does not mean it does not exist - i'll have to remember that when i can't find my car keys. as for what colin said, intelligence is conflicting and contradictory. and as i've said, quite a few other intel services believed he had wmd's too.

second point - depleted uranium is used for armor penetration. nothing beats it. still an acceptable munition and un resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on. given that most of the fighting is urban with very little need for the listed weapons platforms in the links you cited, it's still as nebulous as global warming. also within one of your links it listed burned out vehicles. it was common knowledge back in 91 not to be near one due to the chemicals and short term radiation in the area. also of note is while it's easy to blame an increase in cancer on the du, you should remember that the sky was black at noon due to the burning oilfields and we were frequently covered in soot. i'd place more emphasis on that being the cause for the rise in cancer.

third point - white phosphorous is not considered to be a chemical weapon. a chemical weapon is something along the lines of nerve agent, blister agent, and so on.

fourth point - from your own links: The Baghdad Municipality blames insurgent attacks and crumbling infrastructure, but those without water say the problem lies with corrupt officials. also - water is often contaminated, owing to the poor repair of sewage and water-supply networks and the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, which are the main source of drinking water.” how is this the fault of the us again?

also from your links: Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

While many Baghdadis acknowledge that the insurgent attacks have curtailed their water supply, they also blame officials for the crisis.

"There is corruption inside the ministry," says Fadhil Hassan. "They are stealing the reconstruction money which should be spent on water projects," he says.

regarding electricty - how many homes over there have electricty? not many that i saw. again, from your own links:

Aadil Al-Ardawi is a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality. He says sabotage by insurgents is the main reason the people are suffering.

in conclusion on that point, it's no wonder child mortality rates are up - but is it really the fault of the usa or the insurgents?

fifth point - from the link dated October 31, 2005: “Nearly two years ago, the US developed a reconstruction plan that specified a target number of projects that would be executed using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines” in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.

Mr Bowen found that “systematic planning” for the post-hostilities period in Iraq was “insufficient in both scope and implementation”.

you say no plan, well it seems there was one, just not as in depth as it should be. that last sentence by mr bowen ruins your statement about no plan........if you'd said insufficient, lacking, something similar to i'd probably have agreed.

sixth point - a report by cnn with that number cited as the number wanted by military brass does not count as "...standard militry doctrine..."

you've failed miserably on that rebuttal.

seventh point - no link provided. you stated "You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet"

i said "i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false."

do you really consider "A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point." to be sufficient to prove that when your own words double or triple the number of your original statement plus no reference to the altitude the bombs were dropped at?

eighth point - then perhaps you should have been more clear in your original writing eh?

First you say they havent found them yet...please im not even gonna comment.

second so what???... the point im making is its effecting the population as i made in the original statement. I dont care what weapon it comes from that wasnt my point.

third white phosphurus IS CONSIDERED a chemical weapon as it kills in masses, please just watch the video as ive seen the scenes than comment. And it was considered chemical by many people if it wasnt why the hell would the US try and deny it.. you have no argument on this im sorry./

fourth electricity water...its been 4 years the point is it still isnt stable i dont care whos doing it, you guys started the war and also you mishandled billions of dollars of iraqi money (search yourself if you need to see a link on that one)

fifth. Im sorry mate but ive seen high ranking officers in the british army say that there was no real plan even uptil recently, maybe i provided you with an old link but you put me on the spot and I searched fast.

sixth fine admitted not militiry doctrine as such but come on its worth its weight in gold when you are being told that by your own commanders.

seventh Ive already told you it was on the BBC on TV cant exactly push that through the net sorry and yes there are videos that prove his point. Not interested in finding them for you, but not a problem.

eighth my writing was not to start lumping links on it was just a point I was making that Iraq should not have been attacked.

Any way respected you know your stuff too. Im done with this topic. It was interesting. Peace.

we'll just have to differ on many of those points, but concerning white phosphorous - here's a quote from wikipedia, aka the number 6 reference system

White phosphorus is a flare / smoke producing incendiary weapon,[1] or smoke-screening agent, made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus. White Phosphorus (WP) bombs and shells are essentially incendiary devices, but can also be used as an offensive anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns or death[2]. It is used in bombs, artillery shells, and mortar shells which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White Phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The Vietnam-era slang "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter" is still occasionally heard.

White phosphorus weapons are controversial today because of its potential use against humans, for whom one-tenth of a gram is a deadly dose. In recent years, the US and Israel[3] have admitted using WP against enemy targets. Particularly, its use by the US, given the public stance against chemical weapons, has resulted in considerable controversy (see White phosphorus use in Iraq). Initial field reports from Iraq casually referred to White Phosphorus use against humans[4], but it was officially denied until November 2005[5].

Subsequently however, the Pentagon admitted [6] to its use while claiming that its use for smoke signals is legal and does not violate chemical weapon conventions[7]. However, a statement by a Pentagon spokesman says "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,"[8]

In any event, the United States is not a signatory to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and even this mentions WP only in a Schedule[9], and not as a chemical weapon per se (more details below).

Effects on humans

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into soft tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke and by being ingested. Extensive exposure in any way can be fatal.

link

if anyone ever gets any on them, put mud on it - that stops it from burning.